An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth

by M K Gandhi

  This provides us an insight into Gandhi’s experiments and his quest, which is to know himself, to see God face-to-face and attain moksha. The experiments with truth are a means to this quest. Means to be means have to be within reach, communicable and ever replicable. The experiments narrated in the Atmakatha, Gandhi claimed, were of that kind. But the antaryami speaking in a ‘small, still voice’ from within and pointing out to him the path of duty remained incommunicable.

  ~

  Mahadev Haribhai Desai (1892–1942), trained in philosophy and law from the University of Bombay, joined Gandhi in November 1917. Prior to this he had worked in the Oriental Translator’s office in Bombay, learning the art and craft of translation that he would eventually master. He made his mark as a translator early, having been chosen from a competitive process by the Forbes Gujarati Sabha to translate Lord Morley’s On Compromise. Before joining Gandhi, as he struggled, like many others, to establish his legal practice in Ahmedabad, Mahadev and his friend, fellow lawyer and soon to be ashramite Narhari Parikh co-translated Rabindranath Tagore’s Chitrangada and Bidai Abhishap and Prachin Sahitya from Bengali into Gujarati. Both Narhari Parikh and Mahadev Desai in a joint letter responded to the draft rules of the Satyagraha Ashram that Gandhi had founded in Ahmedabad. Narhari was the first to take the plunge and join the Ashram. It appears that the first serious discussion between Gandhi and Mahadev was about translation. Gandhi had written a pamphlet on the nature of satyagraha in Gujarati which was given to the teachers of the Rashtriya Shala (National School) for translation into English. Narhari Parikh, who had joined the Rashtriya Shala in May 1917, gave the pamphlet to his friend Mahadev, then visiting him at the Ashram, to translate. Mahadev was at that time was employed in the Bombay Central Cooperative Bank. Mahadev’s translation was reviewed by Gandhi in the presence of the teachers of the Rashtriya Shala. Narhari recounts the incident: ‘Mahadev had a long discussion with Gandhiji as the latter went on suggesting changes in the translation. The translation by Mahadev and discussion over it raised Mahadev in Gandhiji’s esteem.’85

  By 31 August 1917 Mahadev was ‘love-struck’ and pondering over a possible future by Gandhi’s side. By 19 September 1917, Gandhi had begun to treat Mahadev as his secretary; a letter of Gandhi’s bearing that date to Satyendranath Bose is in Mahadev’s hand. Mahadev was twenty-five then. He spent the next twenty-five years by Gandhi’s side, as a constant companion, following him even to prison on several occasions. Mahadev’s ambition was not only to serve Gandhi as his secretary or even as ‘servant and porter’, as he liked to describe himself. Mahadev’s aspiration was to capture something of Gandhi’s tryst with Truth. His diaries, published posthumously as Mahadevbhai Ni Diary, are a record of each day that he spent with Gandhi. The twenty-two published and three unpublished volumes of the diary is one of the most outstanding examples of the aspiration to capture the unfolding of the practice of Truth. Mahadev was chosen as the translator of Gandhi’s Autobiography.

  Prior to the writing of the Autobiography, Gandhi had written Hind Swaraj in 1909 and Dakshin Africa Na Satyagraha No Itihas as a prisoner in Yeravada. Gandhi translated or, as he liked to call it, ‘paraphrased’ Hind Swaraj into English. The word ‘written’ is an inexact description for Dakshin Africa Na Satyagraha No Itihas. He began to dictate this account to his fellow prisoner Indulal Yagnik in the Yeravada Central Prison on 26 November 1923. By the time he was released, due to ill-health, on 5 February 1924—earlier than his stipulated term of six years—he had completed thirty chapters, which appeared serially in Navajivan from 13 April 1924 to 22 November 1925. The remaining twenty chapters were written after his release. They appeared in a book form in two parts, in 1924 and 1925. The English translation, Satyagraha in South Africa, was done by Valji Govindji Desai, fellow ashramite and teacher at the Ashram School. It was seen and approved by Gandhi, and published in 1928 by S. Ganesan, Madras. A second revised edition was published by Navajivan Press in December 1950.

  Neither Gandhi nor Mahadev Desai has left any record of the discussion about the possible translators for the Autobiography. There is no record perhaps because there was no discussion. Mahadev was not only the closest companion of Gandhi but also one who bore witness, like no one else, to Gandhi’s experiment with Truth and brahmacharya. Mahadev can be said to have had unique access to Gandhi’s antaryami, if it was possible for a person other than Gandhi to have access to the workings of his conscience. The original Gujarati manuscript of the Atmakatha in Gandhi’s hand does not survive. But the archives of the Sabarmati Ashram have thirty-nine chapters (totalling to 450 handwritten pages) of Mahadev’s translation.

  Mahadev’s translation of the Autobiography commenced with the 3 December 1925 issue of Young India and continued till the issue of 3 February 1929. With the exception of Chapters XXIX–XLIII of Part V, all other chapters were translated by Mahadev. These chapters were translated by Pyarelal Nayar during Mahadev’s absence from the Ashram at the time of the Bardoli Agrarians Inquiry by the Broomfield Committee in 1928–29. The translation, according to Mahadev, had the benefit of Gandhi’s revision and Mirabehn’s (Madeline Slade) careful reading. In the ‘Translator’s Preface’ Mahadev wrote, ‘No one, perhaps, is more conscious of the blemishes in the translation than myself. But it might be some comfort for the reader to know, that the volume, in the form in which it now appears, has had, so far as the meaning of the author is concerned, the benefit of his own careful revision, and so far as the language is concerned, the advantage of equally careful revision by Shrimati Miraben (Miss Madeline Slade), who cast in her lot with us at the Ashram a year and a half ago.’86 The first edition was published in two volumes. The first, containing three parts, was issued in 1927 and the second, containing parts IV and V, in 1929.

  The second volume does not contain any ‘preface’ by the translator. It carries, however, the names of two translators: Mahadev Haribhai Desai and Pyarelal Nair (not the more prevalent and correct ‘Nayar’). This edition priced at Rupee 1 sold more than 50,000 copies and ran through five reprints. The price was seen to be ‘prohibitive for the Indian reader’ and the need for ‘a cheap edition’ was long felt. It was decided to publish the book in a single volume.87

  The second ‘revised’ edition of The Story of My Experiments with Truth appeared in May 1940. In the ‘Translator’s Preface’ to this edition Mahadev Desai wrote, ‘The translation as it appeared serially in Young India had it may be noted, the benefit of Gandhiji’s revision. It has now undergone careful revision, and from the point of view of language, it has had the benefit of careful revision by a revered friend, who among many other things has the reputation of being an eminent English scholar. Before undertaking the task, he made a condition that his name should on no account be given out. I accept the condition. It is needless to say it heightens my sense of gratitude to him.’88 It was clear from Mahadev’s remarks that Gandhi had not made any changes to the facts. The changes were from the point of view of language. This gives rise to two questions. One, regarding the identity of the ‘revered friend’ who was eminent English ‘scholar’, and the second and more significant question about the extent and nature of the changes suggested and made. A causal glance at the title page of the second revised edition shows two significant changes.

  The title of the book now read An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

  The words ‘An Autobiography or’ do not appear in either the Young India or in the two volumes of the first edition. This change was clearly in keeping with the original Gujarati title, which has the word ‘atmakatha’ in it. The second and equally significant change was that Pyarelal’s name was removed from the title page as one of the translators. Nevertheless, in his preface, Mahadev did mention that chapters XXIX–XLIII of Part V were translated by Pyarelal. Apart from these, it was not obvious as to the nature and extent of changes in the text itself.

  The ‘revered friend’ who had suggested the changes from the point of language was
the great liberal statesman Right Honourable Sir V.S. Srinivas Sastri. The letters between Mahadev Desai and Srinivas Sastri suggest that the work of revisions was assigned to Sastri sometime in early 1935. In a letter of 12 March 1935, Sastri wrote to Mahadev, ‘I’ll remember the Auto. I ought not to have lost the sight of it.’89

  The letters suggest that Sastri’s first concern was the improvements in punctuation. ‘When I write next, I shall give you two or three instances of how I should like the punctuations improved.’90

  Sastri knew that Mahadev, ever so polite and humble, would not ask him for reasons for the suggested changes. He wrote, ‘Please ask without hesitation why certain changes have been suggested, if the reasons are not apparent. You have been very deferential, in fact excessively so, and I should feel guilty indeed if I had taken advantage of it and become a fault-finder for the fun of it.’91

  Commas were Mahadev’s bugbear and Sastri made it bold to suggest that Mahadev read two or three great classics with special attention to punctuations. He also suggested that Mahadev read journals like the Times or The Manchester Guardian. He considered Mahadev somewhat of a beginner in the art of English composition and said that he would send him a treatise on it. ‘Another knotty point as to which you seem innocent is the distinction between restrictive adjectival clauses and coordinating adjectival clauses. . . . This distinction is somewhat hard for the beginner. You won’t find it difficult at all, though for a long time individual cases will worry you, especially when a doubt assails you.’92

  In two days of writing this, he sent Mahadev a treatise: ‘I spent some time yesterday looking into grammar and composition treatise before I chose Fowler’s book. In its field it’s a nonpareil.’93 The revisions were completed in July of 1939. In a letter of 7 July, Sastri informed him, ‘While you are immersed in Frontier problems, a registered book pocket will reach you. You will find with immense relief that it is the Autobiography.’94

  In the same letter he forbade Mahadev from disclosing his name, ‘So let me take leave for the moment with the reminder that my name should never be disclosed in the preface or introduction or press notices. The fewer the people that are let into the secret the better.’95

  The archives and library of Sabarmati Ashram Preservation and Memorial Trust houses a part of Mahadev Desai’s personal collection of books. In this collection are two volumes of the first edition of the Autobiography with both volumes carrying a note in Mahadev’s unmistakable hand: ‘Corrections in this book are made by the Honourable Shrinivas Shastri.’ Both volumes are profusely marked in blue ink, with suggested changes and corrections. With a help of this a table of concordance between the first and the revised edition was prepared. Srinivas Sastri had suggested 1740 changes.

  A bilingual reader commented to Gandhi that Mahadev’s translation did not capture the arresting cadence of Gandhi’s Gujarati prose and suggested that the task be given to Valji Govindji Desai. Gandhi replied, ‘If you find Gujarati interesting enough, take it from me that Mahadev’s English rendering is highly spoken of by many who know English well.’96 Bhikhu Parekh’s essay ‘Gandhi and his Translators’97 brought the question of the English translations of Gandhi’s works to scholastic scrutiny. Since Gandhi wrote all his important works in Gujarati, Parekh argued that close attention ought to be paid to the relationship between the original and the translation. ‘Barring a very few, most of Gandhi’s commentators lack knowledge of Gujarati and thus they never refer to the Gujarati texts, take issues with the translations or locate his writings within the Gujarati literary tradition. As a result, nuances of Gandhi’s thought often elude them.’98 Parekh’s comments were not confined to the translation and interpretation of his principal books and pamphlets but to the monumental Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi project, which sought to provide in three languages (Gujarati, Hindi and English) all of Gandhi’s writings. Parekh says, ‘. . . Collected Works leave a good deal more to be desired. They miss out important phrases and sentences, distort Gandhi’s meaning, overlook crucial distinctions and inaccurately interpret some of his basic ideas. They also fail to give a full flavor of Gandhi’s distinctive style of writing.’99 He showed by comparing the original and the English rendering that the translation of the Autobiography was ‘unsatisfactory’. ‘Prima Facie this is puzzling, especially because Gandhi’s translators were all able and conscientious men—one of them, Mahadev Desai, was not only his secretary for many years but personally also he was very close to him. And Gandhi took care to ensure that the translations of his work did not misrepresent his thought.’100 Parekh attributes the unsatisfactory translations to three sources. ‘First, they were sometimes done in a great hurry and could not be given enough attention that they deserved.’101 In the case of the Autobiography Mahadev had to translate the instalment within a few days of its publication. The second reason according to Parekh is that ‘in some cases the English translations were subsequently revised by men and women with no knowledge of Gujarati and whose sole qualification for doing the revision was their allegedly superior command of English’.102 This comment does apply to both Madeline Slade and V.S. Srinivas Sastri. But to be more precise, Sastri’s changes were largely confined to grammar and punctuations. In the absence of the complete manuscript of Mahadev’s English translation, we are unable to ascertain the nature and extent of the changes made by Miss Slade. Notwithstanding this, the argument made by Parekh remains valid.

  The third is a more important and complex argument. According to Parekh Gandhi’s attitude to Hindu religious tradition was very complex; while being in broad sympathy with it, Gandhi disapproved of some of its institutions and practices. ‘Gandhi had therefore to deploy several extremely subtle and complex intellectual maneuvers and evolve a somewhat elusive and ambiguous mode of discourse that sent out different and even contradictory messages to different communities.’103

  He further argues that sometimes Gandhi’s translators failed to capture his meaning and ‘when they did grasp the meaning, they seem to have been worried by its harshness and morality and tried to soften it’.104 In light of his arguments he advanced three suggestions. First, that Gandhi’s key works be translated anew. Two, the task of preparing authentic editions of Gandhi’s texts should be undertaken and three, for ‘better understanding of his intellectual evolution’105 a close reading of Gandhi’s texts should be done.

  In his ‘Foreword’ to the concordance table that compared the first and the revised editions of the Autobiography, Gopalkrishna Gandhi faced the question of Mahadev’s translation and Bhikhu Parekh’s criticism of it. He began by offering his ‘salutations’ to Mahadev Desai and ‘profound admiration’ for all the translators of Gandhi. Gopalkrishna Gandhi proposed a possible mode of reading of the translation. ‘The text in Gujarati, and Desai’s English translation of it should be seen as twins (or can we say, should be seen as the reverse and obverse of one coin). They came almost in tandem; intense political and public activity surrounded their appearance.’106 Unlike Parekh, Gopalkrishna Gandhi believes that M.K. Gandhi participated actively in the translation exercise itself. There is at least one instance where Gandhi admits to have chosen a particular word in the English translation, that is, in the case of Sister Nivedita discussed earlier. The surviving pages of Mahadev’s translation also suggest that apart from Mirabehn, Gandhi also read and corrected the translation at some places. Gopalkrishna Gandhi concludes, ‘The English Autobiography therefore stands beside the original work not just as an authorised and outstanding translation but also as its first recension, prepared under the author’s direct guidance by one who was his alter ego, whose mother-tongue was the same as his, and who was, like him, perfectly at home in English.’107 He admits, however that he finds in some instances the Gujarati description ‘visually valuable’. Gopalkrishna Gandhi suggests that the usage of Gujarati colloquialisms, alliteration available in Gujarati, is consciously and deliberately dropped in the English rendering. ‘It seems to me that Gandhi and Mahadev Desai
wanted to make the English version leaner than the Gujarati one, and to remove from it embellishment, metaphors, proverbs and the like which though appealing to the Indian reader would not make immediate sense to the English-reading world.’108 Gopalkrishna Gandhi, while in disagreement with Parekh’s criticism of the translation/translators, found ‘merit and value’ in the suggestion that textual studies be undertaken of the Gujarati original and its various translations.

  If one were to take Gopalkrishna Gandhi’s suggestion of reading the Gujarati original and the English translation as ‘twins’ and the English as the first recension of the Gujarati, as well as Bhikhu Parekh’s caution about textual studies of Gandhi’s writing, a method of reading the Autobiography could possibly emerge.

  A textual reading and viewing the ‘recension’ as a ‘twin’ of the original are to me suggestive of a method that has informed this work. The method necessarily involves placing the original Gujarati and the English side by side. It would involve admitting the possibility that the English translation could also have informed the Gujarati, that terms and descriptions or explanations that were added in the English may have been included in the later editions of the Gujarati Atmakatha. It would also involve an exercise in doing a close textual reading of both the texts and to mark the differences, additions, deletion and changes in the meaning introduced in the act of translation, as well as the attempt to capture something of what Gopalkrishna Gandhi calls ‘visually valuable’ and the cadence of the colloquial. An ideal mode would be to prepare a bilingual edition, but pragmatic considerations suggested otherwise. Instead, an interwoven exercise has been attempted, that is, to prepare two separate and yet in some fundamental way connected editions: one in Gujarati and the other in English. Both moved by the conviction that to read the Autobiography is to read it in two tongues, Gujarati and English. The Gujarati edition, to be published almost simultaneous to the present work by Navajivan, a publishing trust established by Gandhi, treats the English as a ‘recension’ and marks all those instances where the English translation found its way into the subsequent editions of the Atmakatha and are now taken as ‘authentic’—for that text is included as an authoritative text in the Gujarati Akshardeha, a companion set to the English Collected Works.